Purposeful Design or Chanced Processes?

[theStudent]

Evidence of God is everywhere.
The Bible states that truth clearly, when it tells us, "The hearing ear and the seeing eye — Jehovah has made both of them."

The ear consists of three parts: the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear.
The middle ear is a small chamber that begins with the eardrum and leads to the maze of passageways that constitute the inner ear.
Besides its function in connection with hearing, the inner ear also possesses organs having to do with balance and motion.
The use of two ears greatly helps a person to locate the source and direction of sounds.

The human ear detects sounds within the range of about 20 to 20,000 cycles per second.
The ears of many animals are sensitive to tones of higher pitch that are inaudible to the human ear. The range of sound energy perceived by the human ear is remarkable. The loudest sound that the ear can tolerate without danger is two million million times as powerful as the least perceptible sound. The human ear has the maximum sensitivity that it is practical to possess, for if the ears were any keener they would respond to the unceasing molecular motions of the air particles themselves.

The outer ear is precisely designed with a specially designed structure of curves, and an opening designed to catch and channel sound waves into the inner ear.

How the ear works


How the hearing works
[youtube][/youtube]

How your ear works - Inside the Human Body: Building Your Brain - BBC One
[youtube][/youtube]

The eye is a highly efficient, self-adjusting “camera� that transmits impulses to the brain, where the object focused on the eye’s retina is interpreted as sight.
The possession of two eyes, as in the human body, provides stereoscopic vision. Sight is probably the most important channel of communication to the mind.

How the Eye Works Animation - How Do We See Video - Nearsighted & Farsighted Human Eye Anatomy


Anatomy and Function of the Eye
[youtube][/youtube]

A Journey Through the Human Eye: How We See


Eye Animation
[youtube][/youtube]

If the male and the female reproductive organs evolved, how had life been proceeding before the complete formation of both?

An egg from a woman’s ovaries cannot produce life on its own. For this to happen, a sperm cell from the male reproductive system must combine with the nucleus of the egg.
What does the sperm do to make the egg develop?

Differently shaped cells begin to form - nerve cells, muscle cells, skin cells, and all the other types that make up the human body.
Science Digest

No one knows for sure, why certain cells aggregate to form a kidney while others join to form a liver, and so on.

Eventually, the human body reaches full growth, being made up of some 100,000,000,000,000 cells.
What causes the cells to stop dividing at just the right time and why?

How Sperm Meets Egg | Parents
[youtube][/youtube]

The Masterpiece of Nature, by Professor Graham Bell

Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. . . . It seems that some of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary biology have scarcely ever been asked . . . The largest and least ignorable and most obdurate of these questions is, why sex?

Imo, it is truly mind-boggling how one can say they have no evidence of God.

Do you agree these give evidence of design and purpose?
Is there any chance that these came about through the process described by evolution theorist?
Evidence for arguments required.

[William]

[Replying to post 167 by William]

The only difference between your argument and mine is that when you say 'an evolutionary process' you fail to acknowledge the intelligence and purposefulness behind said process.

I just have trouble accepting that there is some intelligence behind the evolutionary process without any real, scientific evidence to support such a claim.

Scientific evidence in itself does support the assumption. How that evidence is interpreted is another thing altogether.

You trouble isn't in that the evidence is not there, but in how you choose to interpret the evidence.

Saying that it "looks" designed, or is so complicated it must be designed, or similar arguments along those lines are not very convincing.

I suggested that the reason things are 'not very convincing' was because it aligns more with theists outlooks, of which the atheist position has trouble dealing with.

A rock does not 'look' designed. A machine does.

A machine is made of components such as rock, refined and shaped by another machine which happens to be biological and self aware. Why would I refer to the human form as a machine? Because it acts like one.

Since machines are designed - they are the product of a conscious self aware intelligent purposeful biological machine, it is more than reasonable to expect that the human form itself is the product of a conscious self aware intelligent purposeful entity.

Zoom out and see now a rock which we call a planet - the Planet Earth, and therein it is undeniable that the planet is also a machine - there is little reason to argue that the planet itself is not inhabited by a conscious self aware intelligent purposeful entity, which is explanation enough for WHY forms exist on the planets and WHY those forms are imbued with conscious self aware intelligent purposeful individuate consciousnesses.

To argue that this process is a mindless process lacking conscious self aware intelligent purposeful reason is simply to not see the woods for the trees.

If you had to list just 3-4 items to support the evidence for an intelligent and purposeful process behind evolution, what would those be?

I will list just the one. The fact that it exists as an intelligent and purposeful process is undeniable. This can be seen in nature itself. Specifically it can be understood by humans. That it isn't widely accepted has to do with the distractions of the mundane which act as a barrier and work to the purpose of those who administer the systems of disparity for their own unnatural agendas.

The reason these agendas are unnatural is that they work against nature rather than with nature, because they care not to see the woods for the trees and interpret their purpose to be intelligent and encourage those they control to the believe either that GOD is evil or that there is no thing which can be deemed to be GOD (such as the planet being a living self aware entity from which we all derive [locally speaking] ) and thus their purpose - no matter how unnatural - is the ONLY purpose worthy of our support.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William]

Scientific evidence in itself does support the assumption. How that evidence is interpreted is another thing altogether. You trouble isn't in that the evidence is not there, but in how you choose to interpret the evidence.

But can you list any such evidence, or how it has been misinterpreted? If I conclude that humans evolved from a great ape ancestor because of the cumulative evidence from fossil analysis and genetic analysis that suggests this is a highly likely explanation, am I misinterpreting the evidence or just accepting that this explanation is the most likely one because of the preponderance of the evidence?

Or is your position that humans did indeed evolve from a great ape ancestor through a series of intermediates, but that this process was directed by an intelligent entity of some sort that had a plan to specifically create modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) as either an end result, or some stopping point to a possibly further "refined" being? If this is the case, what evidence is there that shows the hand of this intelligent entity in the process? What do we see in the fossil or genetic record of human development that could not have come to pass without intervention by an intelligent entity?

... it is more than reasonable to expect that the human form itself is the product of a conscious self aware intelligent purposeful entity.

This is an assertion without supporting evidence. You are simply stating that "it is more than reasonable" as a standalone argument.

... - there is little reason to argue that the planet itself is not inhabited by a conscious self aware intelligent purposeful entity ...

Another assertion. What evidence or facts support this statement?

To argue that this process is a mindless process lacking conscious self aware intelligent purposeful reason is simply to not see the woods for the trees.

The evidence for just this process is overwhelming, while the evidence for an intelligent, purposeful process is not. I am just asking for what you would call evidence for an intelligent, purposeful process as opposed to assertions that it is clear and obvious without any supporting evidence. Do you believe that the complexity of life, consciousness, etc. is reason alone to claim that there must have been an intelligent force involved? Or are there other reasons that convince you that this is the case?

I will list just the one. The fact that it exists as an intelligent and purposeful process is undeniable.

Again, another assertion very much like the previous ones. What evidence or facts show that this conclusion is undeniable? What exists on planet earth now that could not exist exactly as it does without an intelligent entity driving the bus?

The reason these agendas are unnatural is that they work against nature rather than with nature, because they care not to see the woods for the trees and interpret their purpose to be intelligent and encourage those they control to the believe either that GOD is evil or that there is no thing which can be deemed to be GOD (such as the planet being a living self aware entity from which we all derive [locally speaking] ) and thus their purpose - no matter how unnatural - is the ONLY purpose worthy of our support.

I don't believe any particular god (of the thousands humans have invented) is necessarily evil ... I just don't know of any evidence that such creatures (gods, devils, etc.) exist now or have ever existed in the past. It is very easy to see how humans invented such things when there was no knowledge of science, microorganisms, the extent of space and the length of time since the formation of the earth, etc. But given what we do know now about these things and many others (the cumulative scientific knowledge humans have obtained) it is very hard to rationalize the idea that one of the many gods humans have invented (or some other intelligent entity) was directly involved in the process.

[William]

I don't believe any particular god (of the thousands humans have invented) is necessarily evil ... I just don't know of any evidence that such creatures (gods, devils, etc.) exist now or have ever existed in the past. It is very easy to see how humans invented such things when there was no knowledge of science, microorganisms, the extent of space and the length of time since the formation of the earth, etc. But given what we do know now about these things and many others (the cumulative scientific knowledge humans have obtained) it is very hard to rationalize the idea that one of the many gods humans have invented (or some other intelligent entity) was directly involved in the process.

Somehow you missed the point I have made.

You interpret the evidence as if there doesn't need to be a conscious self aware intelligent purposeful reason for biological life to have evolved in and on this planet.

I interpret that it does.

We have the same evidence, and just interpret it differently.

I never ever stated that it was the handiwork of some idea of god invented by human beings.

I did state that I interpret the evidence as being the handiwork of an intelligent entity which is incarnate within the actual planet, and gave logical reasons for why I interpret the evidence as being the case.

The entity can indeed provide the individual with evidence of its existence. The evidence will be subjective and specific to that individual. In that, it becomes less a question of science and more a thing of personal experience.

The entity is connected to you in an extremely intimate manner - you are like a node on a tentacle and for that - what you experience the entity experiences also. Add to that every other living critter on the planet and understand that the entity is as intimately connected with each one of those countless individuate lifeforms and considers them all to be aspects of Itself.

All this is experienced by the Entity as a singular perpetual event - simultaneously occurring, our forms are the eyes and ears hands and feet of the Entity, the tools specific to the task.

Do you think you could possibly understand such an Entity in all its fullness? No one can.

But what you can do is experience the evidence of that personal connection if you wanted to and from that, glimpse to behold something your individual brain (as great as that is) is not capable of understanding in its fullness - but it is enough of a glimpse to nudge you in a direction which ultimately will prove to be the best direction you could ever choose to go.

But no, if your expectation is to somehow see this hidden reality through the tools of science so that then you might understand and believe, you are sadly mistaken. The 'burden of proof' rule doesn't apply and for very obvious reasons already sketched out for you here...best stick to the devil you know and accept that for those of us who make the effort, what science does is confirm for us the glory of this entities handiwork.

Just as I accept that what I speak of here, isn't for everyone.

So you know...if you find the explanation of biological evolution to be sufficient for your needs without the addition of any conscious self aware intelligent purposeful being responsible for it, and find therein something to be in awe of, and this gives you reason and purpose enough, then good for you...

But if you continue to make demands on others to 'show you the evidence' you will be told the same thing. You will be pointed toward the gateway to this personal experience but YOU will have to make the effort yourself. That is just the way of it for everyone.

See?

What occurs when an individual makes the effort is a feedback loop between the Entity and the individual. It gives the individual more meaning for their existence and experience than the individual could have possibly even imagined and it is something that the Entity wants the individual to experience...a connection with IT...but will never force the individual to do so.

Seriously I haven't meet anyone yet in your position who demands for 'evidence' and even actually expects anyone to be able to provide said evidence. Those who demand such do not even know what kind of evidence they would consider to being genuine anyway...so it is all a bit fraudulent and erroneous for that. Shallow and superfluous, disingenuous even...

Having said that, if you truly DO want evidence, I have explained that this can be given to you BY the Entity Itself.

All your choice how you proceed with that.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 172 by William]

The 'burden of proof' rule doesn't apply

I for one am rather suspicious of people who make grand claims about reality and then insist that the burden of proof doesn't apply, that their claims are not subject to verification or falsification.

[William]

[Replying to post 172 by William]

The 'burden of proof' rule doesn't apply

I for one am rather suspicious of people who make grand claims about reality and then insist that the burden of proof doesn't apply, that their claims are not subject to verification or falsification.

Me too.

But when it comes to claims which cannot be verified scientifically (read my whole post for more on that) and I am told that if I want the evidence it will be subjective in nature and I will have to experience it for myself, I don't go shouting 'foul' and complaining that all such "grand claims" re God-like Entities must HAVE to be scientifically verifiable and falsifiable before I can believe them.

Rather, I go test the waters and see what is found therein.

Now when it comes to grand claims such as CAN be scientifically verified and falsified, such as for example a miraculous event which repeats itself, then yes, I certainly agree that if it can be tested scientifically, it should be.

If you read my post again, you will note that no such claims have been forthcoming and I have explained how the individual at least can approach this personally and in doing so, find the claim to be supported by the subjective evidence that person WILL experience.

So - read my post again.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 172 by William]

Seriously I haven't meet anyone yet in your position who demands for 'evidence' and even actually expects anyone to be able to provide said evidence. Those who demand such do not even know what kind of evidence they would consider to being genuine anyway...so it is all a bit fraudulent and erroneous for that. Shallow and superfluous, disingenuous even...

OK ... I think we can agree to disagree and not beat this dead horse anymore. I was hoping for some examples of tangible evidence that an intelligent entity was involved, rather than simply assertions that it is so. For example, a case where a speciation event happened so far outside of the known range of parameters (time and number of mutations) required by Darwinian evolution that it could only be explained by an external interfering entity. Like a complex eye suddenly appearing in 1-2 generations, or an animal giving birth to offspring having a genetic makeup not precisely predictable from the genetics of mother and father, or a complex brain appearing suddenly without the requisite slow march through many, many generations towards that result. Anything of this type that would falsify the basic theory would convince me to think more seriously of alternative explanations.

I see that for you it is a personal experience kind of thing and more metaphysical than scientific, and nothing wrong with that. I have debated this subject for 30+ years with relatives and coworkers and ran into viewpoints from every angle there is I think. There is no real argument against personal, subjective belief like this.

[stevevw]

[Replying to post 170 by William]

I noticed you used the word undeniable a couple of times for recognising design in nature. This brought to mind a book written by Douglas Axe called Undeniable. He is a molecular biologist and though his book does go into some detail about how life is designed from a biological point of view he has written his book for the layman so that they can also understand the logic of why he believes life has to be designed. He calls this the design intuition that everyone has even as children we perceive design in the world. We are all common scientists who can decern design from non-design and this is within all of us.

Rather than children being deluded and having to be taught how to grow out of this design intuition as many have said, it is the other way around. As adults, we try to suppress this design intuition but it is hard to deny. Those who deny design in life have to continually tell themselves that there are other reasons for how life came about and exists and this takes some effort. That is why Mr Axe calls the book undeniable in that we cannot deny that life is designed. There has been studies and research which show that belief in dive concepts comes naturally for children and they have a natural tendency to see design in life. Even as adults the studies show that we naturally will believe in the idea of something that is beyond our material existence which is behind everything.

http://www.undeniabledesign.com/about/

Religion Is Natural
Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief - belief in mind-body dualism, and belief in divine agents -- come naturally to young children.

We have a similar bias to attribute an agent when we see nonrandom structure. This is the impetus for the argument for design -- the intuition that the design that is apparent in the natural and biological world is evidence for a designer. In one recent poll in the United States (July 2005), 42% of the respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and most of the rest said that evolution occurred, but was guided by God.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Is_Natural

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife
New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103828.htm

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by theStudent]



[center]
Shutting down the mind is NOT the path to knowing[/center]

Evidence of God is everywhere.
The Bible states that truth clearly, when it tells us, "The hearing ear and the seeing eye — Jehovah has made both of them."

Oddly, I can't see that evidence.
I CAN, however, read that wonderful Bible passage.

I don't think that what people write affects reality, but that it's really the OTHER WAY AROUND.

Just because someone wrote something down doesn't make it automatically true.

Imo, it is truly mind-boggling how one can say they have no evidence of God.

It's really quite simple.
Ears, eyes, and so on exist.

The theory of evolution explains a whole LOT about how we got to "now".
We might not know everything, of course, but we DO KNOW A LOT.

You don't seem to be able to trust the thousands of scientists who study how nature works. That would be a little mind-boggling to me.

Oh, and by the way, inferring "design" and "purpose" in nature is projecting our human thinking out ... Humans design things.. and Humans have purposes. That's clear. What is NOT clear is an invisible designer with a purpose "OUT THERE".

I can observe your conclusion that the world is "designed" with some "purpose" in mind. I do NOT observe your god. The logical LEAP from your capacity to see a design to your GOD is stunningly audacious. I can't take it with you. Go ahead and take it, if you must.

Logically, of course, it just doesn't follow.

Do you agree these give evidence of design and purpose?

No.

Is there any chance that these came about through the process described by evolution theorist?

Yes.

Evidence for arguments required.

There's been 150 years of scientific evidence.
Is that not enough, in your opinion?

Why don't you believe any of that?
I think if you were honestly looking for evidence, you'd easily find it.

Let me know if you are seriously looking for it.
It's not like the Holy Spirit or something invisible like that.

It's REALLY there, friend.
Good luck with your dogmatic approach to religious beliefs.

It's affecting your capacity to think about science.

Don't imagine that by building a Trump Wall about this that you WILL be able to learn. I'm afraid that you will have to go to the considerable trouble of bashing it down first. From what I read, that would be for you a HUGE task.

I'm afraid that for now, you are going to be stuck with Creationist propaganda.

But as in all things that are worth it, we can go one small step at a time.
But you have to at least be OPEN to taking a first step.

I am NOT enthusiastic about your capacity to take even that.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 174 by William]



[center]If science fails to demonstrate something, we can find a way to believe it anyway.[/center]

But when it comes to claims which cannot be verified scientifically (read my whole post for more on that) and I am told that if I want the evidence it will be subjective in nature and I will have to experience it for myself, I don't go shouting 'foul' and complaining that all such "grand claims" re God-like Entities must HAVE to be scientifically verifiable and falsifiable before I can believe them.

Well, if subjective evidence is going to be your guide to the universe, you can believe just about anything that you like, I suppose. People are going to try to convince you of THEIR wonderful subjective experiences about reality.

But of course, you can make up one of those on your own.

If you think that's how scientists approach learning about the universe, you are sadly mistaken. I think you're allowing yourself to be overly influenced by religious thinking.
People who have NO objective kind of evidence will just say that it's all subjective anyway. Yeah, well, some people don't THINK that the universe is "subjective".

But feel free to invent anything that you like, or to accept some pre-fabricated story.
Fairy tales ( or "God tales" ) are not as convincing to me as cold hard facts.

Subjective experience about the universe ≠ objective facts about the universe

[William]

[Replying to post 178 by Blastcat]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 502#847502